I like to think of my self as a duo of non-being and the being I am to/for other beings. For compared to all beings I am infinitesimally small, practically nothing. But I am also the composition of a mind, body, consciousness, observer, cells, particles, social roles, thoughts, senses, time, personality, history, etc.. I would assume that a perfect science, which is perhaps the expression of nature itself, would possess me as a well defined object, by use of objectivity. It may, however, be the case that no mind perceives objectivity, at least not a priori. All minds seem to follow a path determined by some set of data, but objectivity seeks a description of all data, without placing any significance or emphasis on a particular datum. The focused scope of the mind, i.e. subjectivity, leaves one vulnerable to error; for the broader world is placed outside of awareness. One may find it easier to reason from objective facts to subjective facts than the contrary. If one uses reasoning, which is perhaps the ability to organize thought, then one maybe able to discover or bring to consciousness content of various kinds and functions. Some notions are rather perplexing and the chances of misunderstandings and errors are present.
The conflict between determinism and freewill appear dependent on the time scale of the universe and the effect of its properties on humans. If the universe has no beginning or end and maintains fixed rules throughout, then there would probably be numerous opportunities for biochemistry to form. Science, however, has discovered a numerical beginning for the universe, viz. the Big Bang. Possessing an initial point seems to present one with a domino like concept of the universe, which is seen in classical mechanics I believe. On the other hand, logic or curiosity may negate an initial point by seeking a point before an initial point, or some other counterargument (perhaps by claiming the initial point and final point are one and the same). For though determinism must occur in accordance with the law that governs it, one can also say that all occurrences have already occurred in a sense and one can predict the future if one knows the law. All one seems to need to determine the future of a system is its initial state, the rules it obeys, and the objects obeying the rules. God is beyond all rules, but the moment one can breaks a rule one seems to lose the ability to predict future events, for there would be nothing from which to determine the future from (God is still beyond this as well).
No object in the universe behaves as if it knows everything that will occur. Minds seem to require some supporting principle or rule for the decisions they make; even if the rule is that one will break all rules, which is still a rule of sorts. The ability to maintain contradictory thoughts in one’s mind seems to oppose determinism, for determinism proposes a kind of certainty of course. Uncertainty and cognitive dissonance are perhaps illusions of consciousness, the mind or world as a whole may contain a specific and determined path.
Are we more free than our ancestors? We have better versions of various objects, plus more objective facts. These advance properties give us more control over space and time, which seems to imply more freedom. By making a necessity unnecessary, one frees one’s self from a limit. One seems to free one’s self from limitations by applying a novel limitation. So minds may generate meaning by giving value to objects that are merely objects, making them no longer mere objects. Objects are merely objects, but there’s no such object as a “mere object;” unless one means everything, which is the “mere object.” A mind seems only able to perceive particular objects, i.e. geometric descriptions and sensual experiences. Not only are some notions and experiences/descriptions difficult to express, but language itself appears to contain notions that are beyond empiricism, e.g. God.
Since beings can vary, it is probably the case that freedom varies. All minds may have the ability to decide what is freedom from what is not. Given the extent of my imagination, the physical body is rather limiting. Yet, when one considers that these objects are products of the development of a large amount of moving points, one tends to find amazement of some sort. Though the substance of minds are the same, i.e. we all have brains and are perceiving the same physical world, the desired form is different from being to being. This seems to be both an aesthetic and ethical dilemma. Is a universally appealing form possible?
Ethics seems to contradict freedom in that it implies a restriction. Freedom from all things is perhaps only attainable by God. One may seek to be free of many conditions in one’s thoughts; ethics, however, requires a fair or common distribution of freedom. All of this seems to also imply that one is choosing one’s master by choosing a limitation. For my mind would consider itself the master of my body, and an idea is master of my mind, an idea which is derived from my interaction with the world.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Pwip XXIX
Ethics as an abstract notion of justice or fairness becomes difficult to extract from the general system presently used to organize life. The brain is perhaps a natural computer, and the mind is the software. More understanding of the natural processes that cause various behaviors can result in better fixes for perceived errors. But the brain is highly complex. More complex maybe the mind, or perhaps rather and particularly the content the mind can generate and its deep rooted connection to the environment. There is the natural content from innate ability and the artificial content from culture and artifacts. When the content becomes consistent and honest, some individuals are less willing to accept changes. Though, philosophers, I suppose, can have a healthy skepticism towards the world.
Ethics appears controlling, since an individual would need or ought to be ethical, assuming there is an ethical program/lifestyle that can be tapped into given effort. There aren't many repeatable proofs in ethics that are concrete in the same way as mathematics and science, perhaps. Properties related to ethics seem to express themselves in some of the biological survival tactics, but no explicit expression of the ethical idea comes from irrational moral beings, unless by accident, assuming they possess a language. In fact, the psychology may oppose a discovery of an ethical science, as it would mean the subversion of any once perceived higher power (typically the self, god, ideology, or tribe). Ultimately, rational moral individuals would remain peaceful when undisturbed. Beyond entertainment value violence seems rather useless in safe environments. In a sense, the collective mind adjusts itself based on historical events (learning) and current relations (social dynamics).
The solutions achieved are shown through the results of a particular social system. A social state is perhaps measured by the condition of its population. A group appears to be in a good condition when all its member are in a reasonable positive state and bad when its members are in an unreasonable negative state. Positive states appear more difficult to detect if individuals are less than rational moral. One could be satisfied, yet proclaim discomfort to obtain an unfair advantage, or an individual could be unaware of an actual unfair social dynamic. Negative states are seen to cause population decay and chaos, which is more readily apparent.
Freedom appears closely related to attraction and repulsion, or particularly emotional acceptance and rejection. If an individual likes an event or sensation, it typically claims to be free because it pursued the action knowing the outcome, or it may not even consider its own freedom while engrossed in the positive event. One may consider enslavement, or a closely related notion, when one is experiencing unwanted pain or hardship. The negatives in philosophy appear to be errors in epistemology, or particularly the mapping from epistemology to ontology. The mind's relation to the world is different from different frames of reference, though the fact of some sort of organization, even if inefficient, implies a unification. Perhaps such can be considered a kind of option, options appearing to be a property of freedom. Though certain truths appear dependent on ontology (unification), epistemology (mind), or ethics. Psychologically knowing what is good can be taken quite easily from biology, if it isn't offered freely by it. Whether the biology is correct or not can be a scientific or philosophical consideration, one being whether physics allows such, the other being whether an action was truly the best it could have been. Philosophy converted to science is closer to practical truth, whereas pure philosophy is seemingly quiet idealistic. Some practical truths/notions appear to necessitate the ambiguity of philosophy, such as freedom, and would be more opposed to the scrutiny and certainty of science.
Ethics appears controlling, since an individual would need or ought to be ethical, assuming there is an ethical program/lifestyle that can be tapped into given effort. There aren't many repeatable proofs in ethics that are concrete in the same way as mathematics and science, perhaps. Properties related to ethics seem to express themselves in some of the biological survival tactics, but no explicit expression of the ethical idea comes from irrational moral beings, unless by accident, assuming they possess a language. In fact, the psychology may oppose a discovery of an ethical science, as it would mean the subversion of any once perceived higher power (typically the self, god, ideology, or tribe). Ultimately, rational moral individuals would remain peaceful when undisturbed. Beyond entertainment value violence seems rather useless in safe environments. In a sense, the collective mind adjusts itself based on historical events (learning) and current relations (social dynamics).
The solutions achieved are shown through the results of a particular social system. A social state is perhaps measured by the condition of its population. A group appears to be in a good condition when all its member are in a reasonable positive state and bad when its members are in an unreasonable negative state. Positive states appear more difficult to detect if individuals are less than rational moral. One could be satisfied, yet proclaim discomfort to obtain an unfair advantage, or an individual could be unaware of an actual unfair social dynamic. Negative states are seen to cause population decay and chaos, which is more readily apparent.
Freedom appears closely related to attraction and repulsion, or particularly emotional acceptance and rejection. If an individual likes an event or sensation, it typically claims to be free because it pursued the action knowing the outcome, or it may not even consider its own freedom while engrossed in the positive event. One may consider enslavement, or a closely related notion, when one is experiencing unwanted pain or hardship. The negatives in philosophy appear to be errors in epistemology, or particularly the mapping from epistemology to ontology. The mind's relation to the world is different from different frames of reference, though the fact of some sort of organization, even if inefficient, implies a unification. Perhaps such can be considered a kind of option, options appearing to be a property of freedom. Though certain truths appear dependent on ontology (unification), epistemology (mind), or ethics. Psychologically knowing what is good can be taken quite easily from biology, if it isn't offered freely by it. Whether the biology is correct or not can be a scientific or philosophical consideration, one being whether physics allows such, the other being whether an action was truly the best it could have been. Philosophy converted to science is closer to practical truth, whereas pure philosophy is seemingly quiet idealistic. Some practical truths/notions appear to necessitate the ambiguity of philosophy, such as freedom, and would be more opposed to the scrutiny and certainty of science.
A Philosophical Work in Progress VI
Perhaps innocence is freedom from moral responsibility, i.e. freedom from moral behaviors and moral consequences. Mathematics being quite abstract is rather innocent. Numbers can be applied ubiquitously, but whether they are used for virtue or vice is outside the control of numbers (although in a sense numbers are part of the governing of the world). Accordingly nature is often also seen as innocent, although it is perhaps the true cause of pain and misfortune. This may all depend on whether determinism is somehow intentional. One may assume that if nature knew the pain it caused, and had the ability to negate it, it would negate it. I doubt there will ever be a day where nothing on this planet has died. Perhaps the longest living thing is the chemistry itself, which propagates itself though generation and death. One may conclude that nature itself is either cruel or incompetent.
Babies are also often seen as innocent. Yet they are equipped with various behaviors that allow them to intentionally take control of circumstances. This is opposed to the blind force of nature, which is perhaps also related to the notion of doing nothing, for typically one thinks nature external of a mind/brain is non-volitional. Most creatures appear to be reacting to some overall impression of the world. But no mind appears to be innately equipped with those necessary and arbitrary ideas needed for one to claim one understands the world (and perhaps one never understands the world, but rather only one’s own part of it). It doesn’t seem to be an easy task to get an overview of the world. Practically all animals that are not human are seen as innocent because they lack (or appear to lack) an overview of life. Yet, some innocent beings may still be punished for ethical transgressions.
Our nature is blind in the sense that no one knows everything. The blind force of nature is such because it only seems to know the laws which govern the movement of some particular unit/s. Both conditions could be used to argue for innocence. The choice to willfully perform an immoral action perhaps depends on a feeling and what is considered moral. Without a scientific system of ethics, most moral predicaments are resolved by taste or group authority. If one existed alone, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self?” If one existed with others, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self? How should one treat others?” Usual answers seem to appeal to personal taste or preferences, which appears rather arbitrary and subjective. Yet, any legitimacy placed on a subjective ethical principle seems to imply some underlying objective phenomenon.
Babies are also often seen as innocent. Yet they are equipped with various behaviors that allow them to intentionally take control of circumstances. This is opposed to the blind force of nature, which is perhaps also related to the notion of doing nothing, for typically one thinks nature external of a mind/brain is non-volitional. Most creatures appear to be reacting to some overall impression of the world. But no mind appears to be innately equipped with those necessary and arbitrary ideas needed for one to claim one understands the world (and perhaps one never understands the world, but rather only one’s own part of it). It doesn’t seem to be an easy task to get an overview of the world. Practically all animals that are not human are seen as innocent because they lack (or appear to lack) an overview of life. Yet, some innocent beings may still be punished for ethical transgressions.
Our nature is blind in the sense that no one knows everything. The blind force of nature is such because it only seems to know the laws which govern the movement of some particular unit/s. Both conditions could be used to argue for innocence. The choice to willfully perform an immoral action perhaps depends on a feeling and what is considered moral. Without a scientific system of ethics, most moral predicaments are resolved by taste or group authority. If one existed alone, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self?” If one existed with others, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self? How should one treat others?” Usual answers seem to appeal to personal taste or preferences, which appears rather arbitrary and subjective. Yet, any legitimacy placed on a subjective ethical principle seems to imply some underlying objective phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)